« To live a long life, be funny | Main | Scarlett Johansson at the DNC »

September 05, 2012

Comments

I disagree with the first suggestion being BS -- give women more choices about how to spend their lives, and fewer will choose to have multiple children.

Also, as child mortality declines, the number of offspring required to insure succession of one's line goes down. Two hundred years ago, you needed to have eight children to have a 99% chance of having a grandchild. Now one pretty much does it.

People in rich countries also feel poorer because they work more and there is more stuff to buy (which dilutes your sense of having a lot of money).

Medieval peasants actually worked a lot less than modern workers, read all about it here

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html

Compare to today where you are chained to a smartphone 24/7, expected to reply to emails in a timely fashion any time day or night. There is never a time when you are truly free, and what you produce is rarely tangible so it feels like you accomplish less. Add that to all the "mandatory" expenses of modern life from cell phone data plans, internet, cable, insurance, etc. The modern worker feels stretched thin, triggering "famine" psychology in a time of abundance.

Industrialization destroys birth rates because it makes life worse for the average person. With the exception of famine risk peasants have better quality of life than urban workers in a newly industrialized country.

If your theory were correct, then people in the 1% would be breeding like crazy. That does not seem to be happening. I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

"Declining birth rates will soon reverse themselves as the old-school genes suited to pre-industrial living are replaced with genes better suited for a modern society."

As I pointed out before, memes appear to be trumping genes in this regard.

Very interesting ideas, but you didn't mention R/K Selection theory.

Is that because you feel that R/K Selection is not valid as a concept?

I thought that the CW was that when women got access to inexpensive birth control the birth rate drops.

In pre-industrial times, you had to rely on your children to support you if you could no longer work/feed yourself. As productivity increases through industrialization there are more places to look for assistance (charities, gov handouts, etc.). Consequently, one no longer has to have any children to avoid being destitute when old and infirm. Having no children and living off the investment of parents (i.e. transfer payments funded by the taxes of your peers' children) is a perfectly rational choice.

I believe the economist Gregory Clark has a research paper that would be in agreement with your view. He notes that rich families before about 1890 in the West used to be quite large. (Even larger if you count out of marriage babies.)

Only in the last century or so has an increase in education levels and income led to a decrease in birth.

HS, I believe you are mostly correct. evolution has ensured biofeedback loops are part of the human condition, and thus it makes sense that as adaptability machines we would be preprogrammed to avoid popping out litters of kids in environments where we perceived ourselves hobbled by limited resources.

(do note, however, that humans are NOT programmed to want lots of kids, but to want lots of sex, which is the means that leads to fulfilling the genetic prime procreation directive.)

so why does sh'onquontavious not abide this law? well, one, the welfare state enables the effluvium of bastardy. two, certain population groups perceive resource limitations differently. if your child matures faster and does not need as many resources to get a running start on life (at least in his EEA), then you are better able to tolerate a lower relative resource limitation that would cripple the fertility of k-selected peoples. this may explain why the groups that occupy the lower strata paradoxically have higher self esteems than those who fret in the higher strata over college funds and extracurriculars.

you can thank the gods of amorality that abortion has so successfully cut into the reproductive potential of the lower classes, who, although they outbreed the higher classes, are seeing also a decline in their fertility. i suspect the IQ dysgenic breeding trends would be a lot worse if abortion were never legal.

interestingly, this theory of perceived resources influencing fertility rates infers some rather impolite things about the diversity industrial complex. masses of dissimilar people, behaving in foreign ways and holding dear foreign values, unassimilable due to innate psychological predilections, sheer number, and cultural/political pressures against assimilation, act as a sort of PERCEPTION SKEW that renders the shrinking native population susceptible to cocooning and holding a rat race mentality that works against their fertility rate.

to put it another way, the world and its resources feels like it is shrinking, and the pie getting smaller, when diversity and its concomitant ills -- mistrust, low level irritation, tribal politics, reciprocity severing -- arrives at one's doorstep.

if you want to reverse the declining SWPL birth rate, one solution is clear: close the borders, kick out the non-euro migrants, and end the disparate impact spoils system. odds of this happening during an obama or romney administration: zero percent.

"If your theory were correct, then people in the 1% would be breeding like crazy. That does not seem to be happening. I think you need to go back to the drawing board."

the flaw in HS's theory is the lack of consideration for the impact widely available, cheap contraceptives has had on birth rates. high IQ people are most likely to religiously use condoms and the pill and the like during their premarital fun days, and to continue using them during marriage to avoid the dreaded 3-child disaster.
much of the developing world now has greatly increased access to contraceptives, and this is undoubtedly having an impact on worldwide declining fertility rates. (someone should measure the influx of the pill and condom into countries and see if a correlation to fertility exists.)

>Young people of childbearing age just don’t feel like they have enough resources to have children.

We don't just "feel that way", it's true. All those wonderful benefits that ensure that "no child starves to death" are not available to us.

HS: "Mother Nature has programmed us to want to have lots of children."

Um, not sure about that. Before reliable family planning all Mother Nature had to program was a desire for SEX followed by LOVE for the little bug-eyed creature after it arrived.

Now the genes being selected for are a desire for kids in the abstract. I agree that situation of recent history where productivity grown faster than the population is but a temporary hiccup and that we will eventually revert the historical norm where the main limiting factor on population growth is starvation.

-Mercy

This is not about imagined resource scarcity.

This is about hedonism and nihilism.

If nothing matters to you but your immediate pleasure, then why have kids? They eliminate free time and the opportunity to have pleasurable experiences, plus they are a lot of work. If you think this is it - there is no afterlife, and no greater meaning to this life - then why have kids? Nihilists simply do not care what happens after they are dead.

The ideology of rich countries promotes hedonism and nihilism. Ergo, the low birth rate, which reflects the spiritual death and suicidal self-loathing of the West.

I completely disagree.

My theory is that there's an admixture of two things:

- Poor people make children in the partial hope that their children will do "better" than them and bring bacon to the home. That's especially true with Africans or Indians and their "get rich" mentality. If the parents are themselves already rich, what's the point?

- Prosperity brings hedonism, hedonism brings a decline in religion, and a decline in religion means fewer children.

Yeah, but "welfare mom with multiple kids" is parasitic at best, cancerous at worst.

"if you want to reverse the declining SWPL birth rate, "

SWPLs still believe in the Population Bomb..that their not having kids is going to help someone in Sudan.

"This is about hedonism and nihilism."

Growing up, I learned that children were an impediment to Happiness. Really, my parents showed me that by their behavior. But in fairness, there were an awful lot of kids about in the Fifties and attitudes started to get bad before the population scare came along.

JP,

Seconded. Fertility has fallen most among high IQ liberal women. Conservative smarties still have kids.

There are of course many logistical limitations that make 18-24 difficult for marraige and breeding for smart people that move around the colleges, first jobs, etc. However, there is no reason these people can't be ploping out kids by their late 20s and end up with 3-4. If they don't its by choice. And the choice is usually, "I want to ride the carosel until the last possible minute I hit the wall in my 30s". That's a nihilism problem.

I thought conventional wisdom was about the "cost" of child-rearing being higher as a society becomes more advanced (industrial -> post-industrial)

In an agricultural society the cost of additional children is negligible as raising them to in that society is essentially free once they reach an age where they can do labor. As well, the cost of educating those children to have reproductive success (educating them sufficiently such that they can be successful within that society) is dramatically higher in an industrial/post-industrial environment.

Essentially...as society develops the parental investment required to produce "successful" offspring requires an increasingly large percentage of the parental output thereby reducing the number of children those parents have (since most reasonably intelligent couples CHOOSE how many children to have, rather than go Duggar style)

What's something you can definitely say about the life of a welfare mom? It's a damn boring one, that's what.

My theory is that women have some kind of psychological switch that impels them not to breed when their lives are "busy" and full of interest, and when they feel they have responsibilities - EVEN if those responsibilities are not so time-consuming that they should prevent them from raising a child.

The amount of additional money a welfare mother receives after having another kid isn't enough to make her feel like resources are less scarce. It doesn't work out to that much. So, that section of your theory seems like a dead end.

Concomitant to development is rural to urban migration. Vastly different lifestyle with multiple implications.

My personal theory is that as a society becomes more affluent, the off-spring become more narcissistic. Self-centered and selfish, they evolve to the point they do not want to share resources, even with their own off-spring.

Interesting idea, HS, but I think MarcTheEngineer may be correct. Another thing, it's kind of stupid to want to have children, so the more intelligent you are, the fewer you will have. The less future-orientation and impulse control you have the more kids you'll have.

I think that all of these explanations are correct. I don't see why it has to be just one.

"If nothing matters to you but your immediate pleasure, then why have kids? They eliminate free time and the opportunity to have pleasurable experiences, plus they are a lot of work. If you think this is it - there is no afterlife, and no greater meaning to this life - then why have kids? Nihilists simply do not care what happens after they are dead."

The way things are headed, things will eventually become tribal once again and yes, you will personally be worse off once again in your old age if you had no kids.

The consequences may come sooner than we think.

If there is hyperinflation in the next 20 years all those old and childless in rich countries will feel the burn. Already old-age benefits are being diluted greatly in favor of general welfare infantilization of the entire friggin' population.

I am surprised you have not yet commented on Anna Dunham's piece in the New Yorker:

http://www.readability.com/read?url=http%3A//www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_dunham%3Fmbid%3Dsocial_tablet_e%26share%3DqE9ikA%26currentPage%3Dall

It makes me suspect she is far less perceptive and/or plugged into Game/PUA material than you think. More likely, she is simply recounting her experiences and those of her friends.

Two unrelated points:

1) The region of the world with the sharpest decline in birth rates from the 1960s are the Persian Gulf States. As they got wealthy from oil total fertility dropped from 10+ per women to what is currently below replacement level.

If declining fertility rates were caused by women's education/liberation, not wealth, then the Gulf States should have not dropped that much. They had enormous rises in wealth going from being the poorest countries on Earth to the riches, but much less women's liberation than most of the rest of planet over in the past 50 years.


2) It's clear that people of childbearing years are poorer relative to older people more in developed countries. However many people past child bearing years desperately want grand children more than anything else.

For senior citizens the number of grandchildren is much more correlated with happiness than material wealth, at least for those who are middle class or above.

So the paradox is why don't potential grandparents pay their children for grandkids to incentive them. E.g. if I have $10 million in savings and my kids are grown offering them $1 million per grandkid does not seem unreasonable. This would ameliorate the problem you identified where child-bearing age people do not feel rich enough to have kids.

The state could even encourage this practice to raise fertility rates. First off exempt all payment for grandchildren from any form of gift tax. Second much of senior wealth is tied in non-transferable assets like pensions, health insurance guarantees, life insurance, etc.

In the case that these are provided by the government like social security of medicare, allow a one-time transfer for the condition of grandchild. I.e. kids get a check now for having a kid and the grand-parent gets a reduced SS check, or less medicare coverage.

In the case that they're private pass rules mandating that some sort of transfer be allowed to pay for grandkids. E.g. allow the beneficiary to collect some portion of a life insurance payout on the birth of a grandkid.

The reason is because modern women forgo settling down and marriage, until they attain their secondary education and establish a respectable career path, in which time they have placed themselves outside their prime fertility phase.

This phenomenon is more pronounced in professional careers where women need graduate, residency or doctorate to compete. Not to mention its difficult for these "alpha" career women to find equal partners in a society where more women graduate and have jobs than the average American male.

Every year after 25 the typical women's fertility drops by 10%, while the chance of birth defects exponentially increase.

Hence the reality for many women is either have a successful career or children with family, unless fertility treatments and birth defect preventative technology is drastically enhanced, the typical women will need to make this choice by age 25.

Having multiple children in America will guarantee an expedited ticket to poverty for future generations, its a simple equation, since its less material and financial resources per child.

"Essentially...as society develops the parental investment required to produce "successful" offspring requires an increasingly large percentage of the parental output thereby reducing the number of children those parents have (since most reasonably intelligent couples CHOOSE how many children to have, rather than go Duggar style)"

That's the belief. HBDers should know the truth. Very smart people will have mostly successful children, full stop.

Good post. I think part of it also is just the cultural shift to feminism and smarter women wanting to pursue careers and travel to gain status.

At the other end of the spectrum the least productive don't have the future time orientation to use contraception consistently.

Ironically, Professor Jim Flynn (of Flynn Effect fame) who has talked of rising intelligence scores pointed out that society was going to get dumber because of these trends.

"An internationally recognised expert on intelligence warns New Zealand children could get dumber in three or four generations unless women with higher education started producing more babies.

Otago University emeritus professor Dr Jim Flynn was commenting on census figures that show mothers without a higher education were the anchor of New Zealand's current fertility rate.

"Everyone knows if we only allowed short people to reproduce there would be a tendency in terms of genes for height to diminish. Intelligence is no different from other human traits," he told the Sunday Star-Times.

"A persistent genetic trend which lowered the genetic quality for brain physiology would have some effect eventually."

Statistics show women without tertiary qualifications who had reached their early 40s had produced 2.57 babies each.

In contrast, women with a higher education were producing just 1.85 babies each."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450313

The problem is that women absolutely do not want to have kids by a Beta or an Omega. Since the 1960s the pussification of the West has reached critical levels, ergo the increasingly common trend of the most intelligent, upwardly mobile women choosing to forgo motherhood or perhaps have one child as a single mother. The female hindbrain finds males of lesser status absolutely repugnant.

This also reconciles the allegedly mortal fear women have of being raped, and impregnated by a rapist, with the fact that the most common female sexual fantasy is rape. They don't want to be raped by a Beta or Omega and want the right to kill his inferior spawn if it does occur and she's impregnated. When an Alpha rapes her then he's just claiming what is rightfully his and she's thrilled if it results in an Alpha larva.

Out of control hypergamy is the root of most modern problems, including this one. Women don't really find careers fulfilling; they find it fulfilling to ride the Alpha Cock Carousel instead of essentially being owned by, to them, a lesser man than those who fuck 'n' chuck them. Careers merely enable them to survive on their own without being attached and dependent on a Beta to whom they aren't attracted.

"so why does sh'onquontavious not abide this law?"

What law do these animals abide by except when held at gunpoint?

"Mother Nature has programmed us to want to have lots of children... Our genes don’t understand that in modern times, there are plenty of resources available to feed your children"


I disagree with both of these statements. As I've argued for several years now, humans have a weak innate drive to reproduce, but strong innate drives to have sex and gain social status.

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2009/01/educational-gender-parity-and.html?showComment=1233269340000#c9041172318968563480


In the past reproduction was largely mediated through these drives. Prior to female educational and economic integration, the female status drive was adaptive; it resulted in higher reproductive success -- i.e more surviving offspring -- because women would seek to elevate their status through the one channel available: by acquiring high status mates. And higher status males could subsidize more children.


But post-women's liberation, status drive would have the opposite effect. Now status motivated women have to marry well and participate in the workforce to remain competitive with other women in the adult status arena. The time and expenses necessary for raising children are instead invested in education, career-building, and conspicuous consumption. In turn this makes low reproductive success a symbol of social status, since higher status women have fewer children.

The link between demographic transitioning and status drive are supported by a number of newer papers in the economics literature.

For example, one recent study from Brazil suggests that status imitation drove their demographic transition. As soon as different regions acquired access to Soap Operas (1960-2000) about small, middle-class Brazilian families, local birth rates would drop dramatically to the levels featured in the TV shows (from 6.3 to 2.3 children), and parents would name their children after the characters in those shows.

A similar effect on fertility followed cable television introduction in India.

In other words, as soon as women see higher class women adopt low fertility behaviors, they rapidly follow suit.

This is a key component of my Pioneer Hypothesis. People in K-selected societies (much of the long civilized world, particularly Europe and East Asia) are programmed to acquire resources and status before reproducing (to ensure both the survival of their offspring and the ability to bequeath to them resources to help their offspring's own reproduction). Today, thanks to relative depravation, people do indeed feel less resource secure. While modern contraception plays a role, there is little question that birth rates rise when economic times are good and fall when times are bad. Indeed, cost of living is the primary way in which population density exerts its pressure on fertility. Cost of living defined as the ability to buy all of life's goodies, which are getting more and more numerous. But do not overlook basics, like shelter, food, transportation/energy. The easier those things are to obtain, the higher the fertility rate and vice versa.

I haven't read all the comments yet. But these are all the factors I can think of that affect fertility.

1 Access to birth control

2 Increased promiscuity means people don't need to marry to get sex

3 Lower infant mortality requires fewer children to insure continuity

4 Its hard for working mothers to balance family and career without help from husband, extended family, etc

5 Religious people have more children and people are less religious than they used to be

6 Social Security. Parents used to have more children to take care of them in old age

7 The welfare state and no fault divorce encourages broken homes which results in fewer children.

8 The "Pioneer Effect". http://goo.gl/bNmE8 Rural agricultural people have more children. Those living in crowded urban areas have fewer. More people are living in urban areas.

9 Pre-industrial societies depend on large extended families. Post industrial societies have given rise to the nuclear family which results in fewer children.

10 People want to finish their education and get established before they start families. So they marry later which means they have children later and have fewer.

11 The higher cost of living in a good neighborhood with good schools means less money for children

12 Keeping up with the Jones's. People would rather have fancy things than more children

"The problem is that women absolutely do not want to have kids by a Beta or an Omega. "

I doubt it, just look at the black community. Since 90% of children are born out of wedlock and the father usually disappears, it should be easy enough to find an "alpha" baby-daddy. And yet black fertility in the US is only slightly higher than that of whites.

In poor countries, elderly people are more dependent on their adult children and so it makes sense to have a lot of children in order to spread the burden of taking care of the parents. In wealthier nations, people are able to save more of their money for retirement so they are less dependent on their children in their old age. Therefore as a nation grows richer its population can afford to have fewer children.

Bertrand Russell said, in 1926, "the prospect of owning a motor-car is a sufficient bribe to sterilize most people". So this thought has been around a while.

Sabril - "the 1%" may not be having lots more children, but the 0.1% seem to be. Romney has 5 - plenty of less wealthy Mormons have fewer. Antonin Scalia has 8(?), plenty of Catholics as religious as he have 2. Men at the very top of the wealth heirarchy do seem to be having 3 or 4 children far more often than most other men (even ghetto gangbangers).

One factor that hasn't been mentioned yet is that making babies is expensive and high-regulated. When you a child you are legally expect to clothe and feed it as well as get it educated. Hence it's generally cheaper to own a quality sports car than raising a child. In other words, children are effectively priced out of the market and most people are hard pressed to raise two children. Have a Libertarian approach whereby parents can almost do what they want with children and birthrate should pick again. Then again the richer people are the more moral they'll be towards children an not sell them into slavery which still sees the immoral poor breeding up over the moral rich.

Lexus liberal said,

"Having multiple children in America will guarantee an expedited ticket to poverty for future generations, its a simple equation, since its less material and financial resources per child."

Again, not true. If your kids have smart genes, things look bright. Public school or home schooling, some college debt to get a decent degree and the smart individual is off to the races. College debt is easily dispatched if you have a degree in a useful field. My family was po', with lots of kids and a dad who didn't bother to start his career until he was almost 40, but I got great grades and test scores, got into an ivy on loans, got a degree in a valuable field and then dispatched my debt in two years after graduation.

All but one of us kids got an Ivy league degree and everyone's doing fine financially, well ahead of our peers.

"My personal theory is that as a society becomes more affluent, the off-spring become more narcissistic. Self-centered and selfish, they evolve to the point they do not want to share resources, even with their own off-spring."

eli has nailed it with that one in my opinion.

One of the causes of the downfall of Rome was that affluent patricians youths reproduced very little for fear of diluting their wealth and disadvantaging their heirs.

I live in the New York Metropolitan area, one thing that I have noticed is the amount of people that do not want to have kids. It is absolutely astounding, this goes for both men and women. They rather spend their money on $700 watches, massive car payments on Mercedes and BMW, expensive dinners, trips to vegas and all this other nonsense.

To me these people are absolutely bat $shit crazy, as simple as it sounds our whole entire purpose while we are alive is to reproduce. You can come up with philosophical nonsense and whatever justifications you want but, the purpose of life always whittles itself down to reproduction.

I remember right about the time I turned 24, something clicked in my head, "dude you need to start worrying about reproducing, start looking for wife material and start getting your finances in order."

If anything, the people who are of decent quality (average to higher iq, and other preferable traits) that aren't reproducing are getting in the way economically, using up valuable resources that the rest of society could be using.

"From the perspective of Darwinian adaptability, the best childbearing strategy for an advanced country like the United States is to have as many children as possible.

snip

Yes, that means that a welfare mom with multiple kids is better suited to modern society than a college-educated couple with just one kid."

Close, but not totally correct.

From the perspective of Darwinian adaptibility, the best demographic strategy for a Western nation to pursue is to encourage those whose evolved traits are best adapted to first world civilization reproduce and increase their percentage of the population and decreasing the TFRs of those ethnic group's whose evolved traits are least adapted to modernity.

This, of course, means encouraging a higher white birth rate (including among prole whites who are needed for blue collar labor) and decreasing the minority birth rate.

It also means discouraging race mixing and encouraging any mixed race couples or mixed race individuals to use egg donors to produce all white children in order to preserve white cognitive characteristics, which are needed for sustaining a Western culture.

Just look at what happened to Jeb Bush's children. Jeb's children inherited low Amerindian intelligence levels and his daughter is a convicted felon with a drug habit because she inherited poor future time orientation. Needless to say, his daughter would have been much less likely to happen if Jeb had married a white debutante from an elite American family. Instead, he married someone whose ethnic group's evolved traits are not compatible with Western cultural environment, and his children have paid the consequences.

"Statistics show women without tertiary qualifications who had reached their early 40s had produced 2.57 babies each.

In contrast, women with a higher education were producing just 1.85 babies each."

The birth rate of high IQ men has a greater effect on dysgenic and eugenic fertility because there are more highly intelligent men than women due the higher IQ variance of men.

"The conventional wisdom, which I am sure is 100% wrong, is explained in an Economist article. In developed countries, women are more educated, and this education somehow makes them smart enough to understand why they should have less children. And also because this education gives women better options to pursue fulfilling careers rather than stay at home and raise children."

No.

Educated white women delay having children because they wait longer to have their financial ducks in a row before getting pregnant. Unfortunately, women's fertility declines rapidly after their late 20s, and by the time white women are ready to have kids, they're egg quality has fallen too low to have as many kids as they want.

If you look at the CDC's state by state breakdowns of fertility by ethnic group and by age range, you will see that white women in highly educated states like Connecticut and Massachusetts have higher fertility than more religious states when you look at birth rates for women older than 30.

The way to increase the white fertility rate and end eugenics is through extending educated white women's fertility with egg donation and egg freezing technologies, which look like they have been tweaked enough to go mainstream.

There was a NYTimes article about elite parents buying their daughters egg freezing sessions as graduation gifts so that they could be ensured of having grandchildren.

Look up the article, Sigma.

"The way to increase the white fertility rate and end eugenics "

I meant

end dysgenics

"At the other end of the spectrum the least productive don't have the future time orientation to use contraception consistently."

There are still ways to disincentive the least productive from reproducing.

The 1996 welfare reform knocked black American fertility down from an average of about 2.4 or 2.5 for the previous decade down to 1.9-2.0, and below replacement.

So even the least civilization adapted race, blacks, can have their fertility lowered with the right incentive structure. I also note that Carribean blacks and Brazilian blacks have sub-replacement TFRs.

There are other ways to encourage lower underclass fertility, such as legalizing marijuana and giving it to prisoners. With both prisoners and ordinary underclass civilians given unrestricted access to weed their fertility rates and crime levels would fall because weed is known to lower sex drive by reducing testosterone levels.

All the talk on the manoshpere is about going sigma or MGTOW. It essentially validates your assertions: if, at a virile age, you disconnect from everyone and live in your own world, i could see that as a male adaptable strategy to restoring abundance to an industrialized upbringing. Or at least the most forebrain logical attempt to do so.

It's the same line of reasoning in both cases dude: if women have less children to give them more wealth .... it's because they feel relatively poorer. The economics don't change, only the psycholgical focus is a bit different ....

"The problem is that women absolutely do not want to have kids by a Beta or an Omega. Since the 1960s the pussification of the West has reached critical levels, ergo the increasingly common trend of the most intelligent, upwardly mobile women choosing to forgo motherhood or perhaps have one child as a single mother. The female hindbrain finds males of lesser status absolutely repugnant."

What's the relationship with prosperity?

Again, this blog is not for the Roissy crowd. Please.

"The reason is because modern women forgo settling down and marriage, until they attain their secondary education and establish a respectable career path,"

This seems plausible, but I doubt it. Girls in places like Tunisia aren't exactly spending years and years getting doctoral degrees. Particularly outside of the elite. And yet fertility there is lower than it is in the United States.


I don't know if you follow Robin Hanson (www.overcomingbias.com), but you should if you don't already.

His opinions on artificial intelligence will help you shine a brighter light on your recent obsession with robots: http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity/0

Dude, the "imagined" resource scarcity is very much real. This is something where I should really throw in alot of links and stats to back that up, but the topic is too big for that. But worldwide population is behaving exactly as Malthus would have predicted after a huge increase in food (the green revolution), an explosion followed by a big drop off in the childbirth rates, which is coming too little and too late. Good comments though.

Anthony,

And "population bomb" Ted Turner had like five or something.

The problem is one of relative status between men and women. As more women have entered the workplace, it has increased their overall socioeconomic status, while lowering the overall socioeconomic status of men. Thus, high IQ, professional women actually find it harder to find a man of higher status than themselves, and have to either A. marry down (which is horrifying) or B. remain childless. On the other hand, low-class women simply breed with alphas, and become single mothers.

OT: another steaming pile of poo on the Hahvuhd brand!


Federal investigators have found that a Harvard University psychology professor who resigned after being accused of scientific transgression fabricated data and manipulated results in experiments.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198932/More-trouble-Harvard-report-finds-disgraced-psychology-professor-faked-data-fudged-results-monkey-experiments.html#ixzz25h265Au5

In poor countries, Children are your retirement plan (no money can be saved). In poor rural areas, Children are only retirement plan after your physical ability going down due to aging.

In rich countries, your saving is only retirement plan. Children are draining your retirement.

At end, we are all selfish. Children are usable tool or burden depending on the economical conditions.

@Dan

"Again, not true. If your kids have smart genes, things look bright. Public school or home schooling, some college debt to get a decent degree and the smart individual is off to the races. College debt is easily dispatched if you have a degree in a useful field. My family was po', with lots of kids and a dad who didn't bother to start his career until he was almost 40, but I got great grades and test scores, got into an ivy on loans, got a degree in a valuable field and then dispatched my debt in two years after graduation.

All but one of us kids got an Ivy league degree and everyone's doing fine financially, well ahead of our peers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/opinion/16kristof.html

The ugly truth is that upper middle class marry other intelligent, wealthy or beautiful spouse from similar backgrounds, which makes it more likely for their children to inherit IQ and "competitive" genes.

Just because you are an exception to the rule doesn't mean the reality isn't true. "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." Bill Clinton

Interesting how you mention your peers, perhaps your peers growing up aren't doing as well and proving my rule.

IQ does confer much social capital, but generally growing up in poverty will hinder IQ development by creating an unstable environment which increases the chance of the kids becoming delinquents, substance abusers or teenage parents.

What type of childhood do you think most criminals come from?

"The problem is one of relative status between men and women. As more women have entered the workplace, it has increased their overall socioeconomic status,"

Again, not credible when you look at countries like Saudi Arabia where females have low socioeconomic status but birthrates are still dropping.

"Instead, he married someone whose ethnic group's evolved traits are not compatible with Western cultural environment, and his children have paid the consequences."

Jeb's son George P. Bush is a wealthy financier who married a pretty blonde WASP and might become president in the future. He is actually better positioned than any of the other next generation men from the Bush clan.

Lots of spoiled rich kids end up becoming lazy drug addicts. A 30 yr old Johnson & Johnson heiress named Casey Johnson lead a useless life as a drug addict and died a couple years ago from a drug overdose:

http://www.gadailynews.com/entertainment/18536-johnson-amp-johnson-heiress-dies-in-039-drug-overdose-039-at-30.html

"Again, not credible when you look at countries like Saudi Arabia where females have low socioeconomic status but birthrates are still dropping."

Is this really true? Women are viewed differentely in Islam, but its not an oppressive male patriarchy as people say. The real losers in Islam have been, and always will be, beta males. Do you think women wear viels because of patriarchy? Many women like the viels. I've met American converts wearing them. The viels are about protecting Islamic women from the gaze of beta males. Her husband, the alpha, get to see her with it off. Hell Islam has polygamy built right into it. It's about pro alpha anti beta, not patriarchy.

Islamic women don't have to work. They don't even have to keep house (Saudi's get paid by the government and have imported slaves to do the work). All they really need to do is consume and please their man.

What about urbanization? It's not so hard to tack a couple of extra bedrooms on the house out in the country. It might cost you a couple of hundred grand or more to move from a two bedroom apartment to a three or four bedroom house.

"to preserve white cognitive characteristics, which are needed for sustaining a Western culture."

It doesn't make sense to have genes be slaves or servants to a culture for its own sake, for the sole purpose of perpetuating or sustaining a culture indefinitely. If an alien race from outer space or robots or whatever were better able to sustain a certain culture, that wouldn't mean that they should displace the previous genes. If an android could be programmed to be like a better brother than your real blood brother, that wouldn't mean the android should replace your real brother. A given culture should serve a given set or group of genes.

"to preserve white cognitive characteristics, which are needed for sustaining a Western culture."

It doesn't make sense to have genes be slaves or servants to a culture for its own sake, for the sole purpose of perpetuating or sustaining a culture indefinitely. If an alien race from outer space or robots or whatever were better able to sustain a certain culture, that wouldn't mean that they should displace the previous genes. If an android could be programmed to be like a better brother than your real blood brother, that wouldn't mean the android should replace your real brother. A given culture should serve a given set or group of genes.

"Jeb's son George P. Bush is a wealthy financier who married a pretty blonde WASP and might become president in the future. He is actually better positioned than any of the other next generation men from the Bush clan."

Considering GPBush was born into one the best connected blue-blood families on earth, GPBush has grossly underperformed compared to other non-miscegenated elite children. He's only a real estate partner in Texas with an undergrad degree from Rice U. Everything he's accomplished up to this point could have been done by a smart business undergrad at a good State U.

And who knows if George P Bush (who doesn't seem intelligent like his pure white Anglo father) would have even made it into real estate but for his last name.

But even if you think GPBush's career is up to elite standards...

"Lots of spoiled rich kids end up becoming lazy drug addicts. A 30 yr old Johnson & Johnson heiress named Casey Johnson lead a useless life as a drug addict and died a couple years ago from a drug overdose:"

So what that some non-mixed race elite children crash and burn?

The case against miscegenation is that on AVERAGE white-NAM hybrids are more likely to end up in the underclass than pure white children, not that there are some successful mixed race people.

From a Darwinian perspective, races are a collection of cognitive and physical traits and abilities.

Since the NAM races have undesirable average traits such as propensity to drug use, criminality, stupidity, impulsiveness, etc, than whites do it so follows that white-NAM hybdrids will increase the frequency of these undesireable traits into the white population and to individual mixed children.

Mulattoes have mean IQs (IQ 92) and lower STDEVs than pure whites (STDEV 14.9). They also likely have higher criminality rates and rates of drug addiction than whites.

From a cost-benefit analysis, there is no way to justify white-NAM miscegenation unless you can show how the desireable traits NAMs have outweigh the negative traits they have.

Look at Jeb Bush's daughter. She couldn't even manage to be less than mediocre; she fell completely out of civilized society and into the ghetto-verse with her drug use and criminal record. The reason she fell out of the elite was because her father stupidly married a non-white woman who passed on the NAM criminality, low IQ, and drug addiction genes to his children.

And are we sure George P Bush isn't enjoying a bit more blow than his presidential uncle did?

sabril: "I doubt it, just look at the black community. Since 90% of children are born out of wedlock and the father usually disappears, it should be easy enough to find an "alpha" baby-daddy. And yet black fertility in the US is only slightly higher than that of whites."


That's only because ghetto women have the highest abortion rates. If Roe v. Wade was overturned you can bet the black population would at least double in 20 years.

Alex: "What's the relationship with prosperity?

Again, this blog is not for the Roissy crowd. Please."


Not for the Roissy crowd. Really? Then who is it for, Herbs in denial? Ha ha.

The relationship with prosperity is that the more prosperous a nation becomes there are fewer Alphas, relatively speaking, to go around for women. Economic inequality increases the more prosperous a nation becomes, great wealth is acquired by fewer people.

That's what Betas mean when they say they can't afford a girlfriend or wife--they have to be wealthy to be considered Alpha enough for a mate. It's getting harder and harder for Betas to make enough money to be considered relationship material.

If not for feminism I don't think the fertility rates would have fallen as far as they have, though they still would have fallen somewhat as they have in countries that didn't take feminists very seriously. It's not just prosperity but prosperity + feminism that has caused the sharp decline in the most developed (Western) nations. The original article in The Economist, I think, was trying to hint at that in a PC way by blaming it on women becoming more educated and preferring careers to motherhood.

asdf: "Is this really true? Women are viewed differentely in Islam, but its not an oppressive male patriarchy as people say. The real losers in Islam have been, and always will be, beta males. Do you think women wear viels because of patriarchy? Many women like the viels. I've met American converts wearing them. The viels are about protecting Islamic women from the gaze of beta males. Her husband, the alpha, get to see her with it off. Hell Islam has polygamy built right into it. It's about pro alpha anti beta, not patriarchy."


Most people can't understand the distinction between primitive Big Man societies and Christian Patriarchal societies; the latter was developed as a form of sociosexual socialism, which is necessary to motivate Betas and Omegas to use their surplus labor for the benefit of society as a whole. This is why Christianity essentially conquered the world and Islam failed.


"Considering GPBush was born into one the best connected blue-blood families on earth, GPBush has grossly underperformed compared to other non-miscegenated elite children. He's only a real estate partner in Texas with an undergrad degree from Rice U. Everything he's accomplished up to this point could have been done by a smart business undergrad at a good State U."

WASPs are now a small minority at the Ivies and other elite colleges. The Ivies and other elite colleges aren't bastions of the WASP elite anymore. There are more Jews and Asians there than WASPs. Children of the former WASP elite don't even tend to go the Ivies anymore. They're more likely to be at state schools and certain non-academically elite private colleges. The whites at the Ivies and elite schools tend to be ambitious, academically inclined types from non-elite, middle and upper-middle class families. George P.'s father Jeb went to UT Austin. Pretty much most of the work that the "elite" "accomplishes", like investment banking, NGOs, media jobs, etc. could be done by smart undergrads from state universities. It's not rocket science.

"And who knows if George P Bush (who doesn't seem intelligent like his pure white Anglo father) would have even made it into real estate but for his last name."

Who knows if George W. would have gone to Yale, Harvard, become governor and president, but for his last name? Actually we know that he probably wouldn't have gotten into Yale undergrad since his was one of the last entering classes that accepted well-connected WASPs for being well-connected WASPs without the academic ability. That's why Jeb went to UT Austin. Who knows if Jeb would have become governor but for his last name?

"But even if you think GPBush's career is up to elite standards..."

George P.'s career seems like typical Bush family stuff.

Most people today in the "elite" careers are workaholic arrivistes from no-name middle class families.

I wasn't making a case for or against miscegenation. I was simply countering your point about Jeb and George P. George P. is probably better positioned than he would be if he were full white. People are sick of the Bush family but just because George P. is half-Mexican he has a shot at the presidency.

As far as Jeb Bush's daughter goes, I don't see how she's not "elite" anymore unless she's been literally kicked out and cut off from her family and has no access to her family's money and resources. The "elite" is filled with drug addicts and alcoholics who do nothing all day but remain "elite" because they have access to family wealth. These people are more "elite" than, say, a striver from an average middle class family that went to an Ivy and is a professional who has to work long hours every day to pay off his big mortgage, private school tuition, etc.

"WASPs are now a small minority at the Ivies and other elite colleges. The Ivies and other elite colleges aren't bastions of the WASP elite anymore. There are more Jews"

This is a lie.

Ethnic Jews are only ~12% of the Ivy Leagues because more than half of all self identified Jewish undergrads in America are half Jewish.

Regarding the WASPs, there are more WASP and WASP descended students at the Ivy's who aren't counted as WASPs because elite WASPs like Howard Dean (married to a Jewish woman) have intermarried with other great wave descended white Americans.

WASP totals are also understated (usually by antisemites) because many high church protestant WASPs became either atheists due their liberalism or converted to a different form of Christianity, normally Catholicism.

In most cases, WASPs in the Northeast are either atheists or effectively atheist but go to church only for social reasons.

"Children of the former WASP elite don't even tend to go the Ivies anymore. They're more likely to be at state schools and certain non-academically elite private colleges."

You obviously haven't met many WASPs because the people who complain the most loudly about mythical WASP displacement don't live in wealthy areas of the Northeast, they're normally antisemites living in rural dead ends.

Elite WASPs, or people with WASP ancestry, such as Bush, Rockefeller, the Chafee family in Rhode Island, the Lamonts in Connecticut, the Weld family in MA, etc, are more likely to attend either an elite school or an expensive private liberal arts school.

After graduation from liberal arts schools, WASPs or people with WASP ancestry often go work for an NGO.

"The whites at the Ivies and elite schools tend to be ambitious, academically inclined types from non-elite, middle and upper-middle class families."

You're confusing generic Anglo-Saxon American protestants with WASPs.

WASPs are a specific and wealthy subgroup of the overall white protestant American population.

The Ivies recruit heavily from expensive high schools where WASPs, or people descended from WASP families (which includes many half-Jews at the Ivy Leagues), still tend to go.

"Who knows if George W. would have gone to Yale, Harvard, become governor and president, but for his last name?"

He wouldn't, but that just goes to show G

"At end, we are all selfish. Children are usable tool or burden depending on the economical conditions."

Yeah, but sometimes I think that earlier American generations had more kids simply for logistical reasons - couples got married earlier and had less to do after work except go home and sit inside with each other. Sex probably filled empty time and killed boredom with a lack of other entertainment outlets or after-work events.

Nowadays a working, college-educated couple may not see each other much outside of weekends, with long working hours and packed schedule.

It's not a lie. Jews are around 20% to 30% at Ivy League schools:

reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=2888&destination=ShowItem

Non-whites are around 40% to 45% at Ivy League schools. Of the remaining population, many are Catholic. There are also some from prole, southern, western, etc. backgrounds. This leaves WASPs a small minority at the Ivy League and similar colleges.

People that are part-WASP aren't full WASPs. They're part-WASPs i.e. mixed whites, mulattoes, etc.

Being an atheist or a Buddhist doesn't make someone not a WASP. WASP is an ethnic category.

WASPs have declined and don't dominate traditional WASP bastions in the Northeast such as the Ivy League and many expensive prep schools. They've been declining since the 60s. This is all well established fact and not even controversial.


"Most people can't understand the distinction between primitive Big Man societies and Christian Patriarchal societies; the latter was developed as a form of sociosexual socialism, which is necessary to motivate Betas and Omegas to use their surplus labor for the benefit of society as a whole. This is why Christianity essentially conquered the world and Islam failed."


Agreed. Myself and others (including Half Sigma) been trying to get this point across for a while now. People either disregard it outright or just nod along while disregarding it. Outside of a few blogs nobody even knows why western civilization rose to global dominance. This is scary because the west is clearly in decline and nobody seems to understand why except a few hundred.

"It's not a lie. Jews are around 20% to 30% at Ivy League schools:"

It is lie.

Half of the 20 to 30% of college students who identify as Jewish you refer to have a non-Jewish parent.

http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2004/jan/20040121_involved.htm

That is one conclusion from National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01 data released by the United Jewish Communities (UJC), the survey's sponsor, at the recent Hillel international professional staff conference. Addressing the Hillel Conference in Princeton, NJ, NJPS Project Manager Lorraine Blass and NJPS Research Director Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz estimated that there were 268,300 Jews age 18-24, and 91,300 Jews age 25-29 on campuses in 2000-01, for a total campus Jewish population of 359,600. An estimated 232,600 Jews age 18-24 were not on campus, some of whom were still in high school and a majority of whom reported that they were working full or part time. NJPS was conducted from August 2000 through August 2001 and included interviews with 217 Jews, ages 18-29, who were in college at the time of the survey. UJC's PowerPoint presentation on Jewish college students is available at ujc.org and hillel.org.

snip

The NJPS data reveal that the college-age Jewish population is almost evenly split between those who have two Jewish parents (48 percent) and those who have only one Jewish parent (45 percent). Students with two Jewish parents tend to be more religiously observant and Jewishly connected than those with only one Jewish parent. For example, 80 percent of those with two Jewish parents felt very positive about being Jewish compared to 65 percent among those with one Jewish parent. Both groups demonstrated an interest in Jewish studies, with 43 percent of those with two Jewish parents and 24 percent of those with one Jewish parent taking at least one Jewish studies course during their time in college.

"People that are part-WASP aren't full WASPs. They're part-WASPs i.e. mixed whites,...

Being an atheist or a Buddhist doesn't make someone not a WASP. WASP is an ethnic category."

WASPs have always been a mixed-white category because they've always accepted talented non-WASP white Americans into their circles.

The original WASP population was largely Anglo-Saxon, early German American and Dutch in terms of ancestry. Over the centuries, they accepted many different whites into their elite social milieu if they thought the outsider was talented and he adopted their social mores. Even before the Great Wave European migration, the WASPs had already accepted Irish, Scandinavian, Southern Scots-Irish, German Jews, and Midwesterners into WASP society.

They've always been a mixed white group.

Anyway, even if you don't count mixed white WASPs as legitimate WASPs, you're still being deceptive by counting mixed white WASPs as non-WASP but counting mixed white Jews as full Jews.

If we apply your method of counting WASPs to Jews and don't we don't count mixed* white Jews as full Jews, then Jewish influence has also decreased in elite circles due to intermarriage with other white ethnicities.

http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2004/jan/20040121_involved.htm

* The NJPS data reveal that the college-age Jewish population is almost evenly split between those who have two Jewish parents (48 percent) and those who have only one Jewish parent (45 percent).

"WASPs have declined and don't dominate traditional WASP bastions in the Northeast such as the Ivy League and many expensive prep schools. They've been declining since the 60s. "

How can they be declining if we are about to vote for another Harvard educated WASP, Mitt Romney, into the White House? Since 1988, there have been two elite WASPs in the White House.

"This is all well established fact and not even controversial."

The documentation which shows a mythical WASP "decline" doesn't factor in elite people with mixed white-WASP background, and WASPs who left high church Protestantism either to become atheists or joined a different Christian denomination.

"It is lie."

It's not a lie. The source from the link I provided is also from Hillel:

reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=2888&destination=ShowItem

It estimates the Jewish population at Ivy League schools to range from 20% to 30%.

"WASPs have always been a mixed-white category because they've always accepted talented non-WASP white Americans into their circles."

They've also always tended to exclude non-WASP whites. And accepting a non-WASP white into a social circle doesn't mean the non-WASP white becomes a WASP if he's not actually a WASP. I've had black friends but that doesn't mean they became Jewish just because they were my friend.

"Even before the Great Wave European migration, the WASPs had already accepted Irish, Scandinavian, Southern Scots-Irish, German Jews, and Midwesterners into WASP society."

This doesn't mean they became or were WASPs. If they were Irish Catholic, then they were still Irish Catholic, not WASP, even though they spent time hanging around WASPs.

"They've always been a mixed white group."

They've always been fundamentally northern European Protestants from the British Isles. That's why they're called "WASPs" and not "mixed white group".

"Anyway, even if you don't count mixed white WASPs as legitimate WASPs, you're still being deceptive by counting mixed white WASPs as non-WASP but counting mixed white Jews as full Jews."

No, because even if you count part-WASPs, the fact remains that WASPs have declined and don't dominate traditional WASP bastions in the Northeast such as the Ivy League and many expensive prep schools.

"How can they be declining if we are about to vote for another Harvard educated WASP, Mitt Romney, into the White House? Since 1988, there have been two elite WASPs in the White House."

Romney is Mormon. Mormons aren't WASPs. None of the presidential and VP candidates this year are WASPs. There are no WASPs on the Supreme Court.

"The documentation which shows a mythical WASP "decline""

It's not mythical at all. It's well established and not even controversial. It's old news.

"It's not a lie. The source from the link I provided is also from Hillel:

reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=2888&destination=ShowItem

It estimates the Jewish population at Ivy League schools to range from 20% to 30%."

You're omitting the rest of the facts on purpose.

Hillel ALSO says that when college students who self identify as Jews are asked about their parental background, about half of them say they have at least one non-Jewish parent. This parental breakdown is consistent with a Jewish intermarriage rate of around 50%.

And this survey was taken in 2000. By today, a majority of Jewish American college students are most likely half Jewish.

"They've also always tended to exclude non-WASP whites."

WASPs have always welcomed other whites into their society. The reason they have a reputation for being exclusive is because they excluded other whites on class grounds, not racial grounds.

For example, it was common for a non-WASP who had the potential and desire to join the WASP elite to become Episcopalian to get himself into the club.

Wealthy German Jewish immigrants such as the Loebs, the Fischers, and Guggenheim's had little difficulty becoming part of the old WASP scene because they fit in culturally with the WASPs, although they were briefly accused of being agents for Kaiser Wilhelm during WWI.

"And accepting a non-WASP white into a social circle doesn't mean the non-WASP white becomes a WASP if he's not actually a WASP."

You're not getting my point, if WASPs have been accepting white outsiders into their society since before Revolutionary War, then WASPs can't be a single European ethnic subgroup because they've always been taking in blood from outside white subgroups.

"They've always been fundamentally northern European Protestants from the British Isles."

They've never been entirely British, WASPs were originally German and Dutch in addition to British.

"That's why they're called "WASPs" and not "mixed white group"."

Again, WASPs have always been a mix of British, older German families, and Dutch and they've been accepting outsiders for hundreds of years.

They're called WASPs for cultural reasons and because they took on Anglo cultural norms, not for strictly racial reasons.

"No, because even if you count part-WASPs, the fact remains that WASPs have declined and don't dominate traditional WASP bastions in the Northeast such as the Ivy League and many expensive prep schools."

If you're going to count part-Jews as fully Jewish in order to make it seem full Jews are 20& to 30% of the Ivy League, why shouldn't part WASPs be counted as full WASPs?

The reason you want to count part Jews as full Jews and part WASPs as nonWASPs is because you are either a liar or you're ignorant about WASP history.

Which is it?

[HS: I think that who you are calling WASPS would be better called the Protestant Elite, because it includes non-Anglo-Saxon European whites and excludes actual Anglo-Saxons who are proles or merely middle class.]

"Romney is Mormon. Mormons aren't WASPs."

Mormonism makes Romney a non-WASP?

I thought you said religion doesn't make a WASP a non WASP because WASPs are an ethnic category:

"Being an atheist or a Buddhist doesn't make someone not a WASP. WASP is an ethnic category.

Posted by: Josh P. | September 07, 2012 at 02:53 PM"

It's good to see you can't defend your lies without moving the goal posts.

So tell us, if WASP is in your words "an ethnic category", then the uber-Anglo-Saxon financier Romney certainly counts as WASP, despite his Mormonism because "WASP is an ethnic category"; agreed?

And if the head of the Republican ticket whose likely to be the POTUS is a WASP, then how can WASPs be on the decline?

"It's not mythical at all. It's well established and not even controversial. It's old news."

The "WASPocaust" Big Lie is largely based on fudged statistics that deliberately undercount the number of people who are WASPs or have WASP heritage.

The WASPocaust propagandists ignore facts such as that membership in the Episcopalian Church has declined in recent decades, intermarriage between older WASP families and the descendents of Great Wave European immigrants (e.g. John Kerry and Lena Dunham), and not counting WASPs because of their religion, such as you not counting elite Harvard WASP Romney as a WASP because of his Mormonism.

Another way WASPs are deliberately undercounted is by only looking at particular regions of the country where WASPs or people with WASP ancestry have declined like New York without factoring in that many wealthy WASP families now live in leafy suburbs.

"[HS: I think that who you are calling WASPS would be better called the Protestant Elite, because it includes non-Anglo-Saxon European whites and excludes actual Anglo-Saxons who are proles or merely middle class.]"

I think "Protestant elite" is what WASP has always referred to, but they included Anglo-Saxon in the terminology because American culture is is derived from British history customs.

However, today elite ethnic whites don't need to become Protestant to be accepted as elite.

As long as they act elite, they can stick to their religion. Elite Jewish Americans like Bloomberg, elite Italian Americans like Pelosi and the Cuomos, elite Irish like the Kennedy family, elite Greek Americans like James Chanos and Olympia Snowe can still identify with their ancestral religions because they all act essentially the same as elite Anglo Americans such as Bush and Romney.

[HS: The elite includes Jews, but only secular Jews, not any Jews who dress in black and white have beards and only eat kosher food.]

"[HS: The elite includes Jews, but only secular Jews,"

I meant elite Jews can still identify with their religion in the sense that still occasionally go to synagogue for holidays, weddings, funerals, and other family events, not that they are religiously devout.

It's similar to how elite cafeteria Catholics like Nancy Pelosi and the Kennedys still consider themselves to be Catholic even though they've largely adopted elite tastes and aren't in any meaningful sense religiously Catholic.

"However, today elite ethnic whites don't need to become Protestant to be accepted as elite".

Being a multimillionaire, and having an Ivy League degree are the minimum requirements to grant you an elite status.

"elite Italian Americans like Pelosi and the Cuomos"

Italian Americans aren't an elite group. I don't consider Pelosi and the Cuomos to be elite, simply because they don't have Ivy League Degrees. It's makes a darn difference. The mark of Ivy League Degree signifies the WASPS old boys network.

Italian Americans are in scant numbers as Ivy League graduates, and this is the reason why they are kept out of the Elite club.

"WASPs have always welcomed other whites into their society."

They generally haven't. Furthermore, accepting someone from a different background into one's society doesn't change that person's identity.

"Wealthy German Jewish immigrants such as the Loebs, the Fischers, and Guggenheim's had little difficulty becoming part of the old WASP scene because they fit in culturally with the WASPs, although they were briefly accused of being agents for Kaiser Wilhelm during WWI."

They were wealthy German Jewish elites. They weren't WASPs. Hanging around WASPs didn't turn them into WASPs. They associated with WASPs, and they were also excluded by WASPs. That's one reason the wealthy German Jewish elites founded their own clubs and establishments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Crowd

"You're not getting my point, if WASPs have been accepting white outsiders into their society since before Revolutionary War, then WASPs can't be a single European ethnic subgroup because they've always been taking in blood from outside white subgroups."

You're not getting my point. WASP is an actual ethnic identity. It's not just some club or something.

"They've never been entirely British, WASPs were originally German and Dutch in addition to British."

Yes and there are probably some WASPs today that have some American Indian or even African ancestry from way back. The fact of these ancestries doesn't mean they aren't fundamentally British. That's why they're called "Anglo-Saxon".

"They're called WASPs for cultural reasons and because they took on Anglo cultural norms, not for strictly racial reasons."

They're called WASPs because that's their identity: Anglo-Saxon, Protestant ethnicity and culture.

An Italian who converts to Protestantism and acts more like a WASP than WASPs, is not a WASP.

"If you're going to count part-Jews as fully Jewish in order to make it seem full Jews are 20& to 30% of the Ivy League, why shouldn't part WASPs be counted as full WASPs?"

I said that even if you count part-WASPs, the fact remains that WASPs have declined and don't dominate traditional WASP bastions in the Northeast such as the Ivy League and many expensive prep schools.

"Mormonism makes Romney a non-WASP?"

Yes, Mormons are actually a different group. Mormons are closely related to WASPs and descend from them. A group of WASPs from the Northeast moved West in the 19th century and developed Mormonism. They are similar to WASPs.

"So tell us, if WASP is in your words "an ethnic category", then the uber-Anglo-Saxon financier Romney certainly counts as WASP, despite his Mormonism because "WASP is an ethnic category"; agreed?"

Mormons are related to WASPs, but they're not the same exact thing.

"And if the head of the Republican ticket whose likely to be the POTUS is a WASP, then how can WASPs be on the decline?"

Mormons aren't WASPs, and none of the rest of the candidates are WASPs.

"The "WASPocaust" Big Lie is largely based on fudged statistics that deliberately undercount the number of people who are WASPs or have WASP heritage."

I really don't know why you're disputing these facts. The decline has been happening in earnest for half a century and it has been noted for decades. Even as far back as the Baby Boom, WASPs in the Northeast were worried as their birthrates were below the national average especially relative to groups like Catholics.

WASPs being reduced into half or part WASPs is a decline in WASPs, and even if you count part WASPs, there has been a decline.

None of this is controversial.

People don't count WASPs by looking at Episcopalian Church memberships or at cities. WASPs have always been present in the suburbs and small towns. The traditional WASP small town used to be a stereotype that most people today wouldn't recognize.

"As long as they act elite, they can stick to their religion. Elite Jewish Americans like Bloomberg, elite Italian Americans like Pelosi and the Cuomos, elite Irish like the Kennedy family, elite Greek Americans like James Chanos and Olympia Snowe can still identify with their ancestral religions"

None of these people are WASPs. They're elite whites, not white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants. If you called these people up and asked them if they're WASPs, they'd think you're stupid. Some of these people are public figures. You could probably contact them yourself. Go ask them.

"Mormons aren't WASPs, and none of the rest of the candidates are WASPs."

You yourself wrote that religion doesn't have anything to do with WASPness:

"Being an atheist or a Buddhist doesn't make someone not a WASP. WASP is an ethnic category.

Posted by: Josh P. | September 07, 2012 at 02:53 PM"

Since religion is not relevant to WASPness, Romney is an uber-WASP. Based on your own definition of what WASPness is.

"I don't consider Pelosi and the Cuomos to be elite, simply because they don't have Ivy League Degrees."

Pelosi and the Cuomo family are definitely elite because the SWPL elites love both of them. The SWPL elite especially loved former NY guv Mario Cuomo and begged him to run against GHWBush in 1992.

There are also two Italian Americans with Ivy League degrees sitting on SCOTUS.

"If nothing matters to you but your immediate pleasure, then why have kids? They eliminate free time and the opportunity to have pleasurable experiences, plus they are a lot of work. If you think this is it - there is no afterlife, and no greater meaning to this life - then why have kids? Nihilists simply do not care what happens after they are dead."

One of the prime directives of any sentient form of life is the desire to manipulate and control its environment. And I don't mean that in a malevolent way...

Watch the joy of any 2 year old when they learn to flip a light switch for a demonstration of this.

For literally 99.99+% of human beings the largest impact that they will have on the world and more importantly the thing that they will have the most direct influence over in the world is their child.

Even if you are a nihilist it is rational to want children.

"Even if you are a nihilist it is rational to want children."

Certainly not. It's irrational, driven by nature. Some of the greatest men of civilization had no children, didn't even marry. And when there is no god, no soul or heaven, then why procreate? What for? In a few billion years, our soon will go supernova anyway.
(Or, as Sister Y -- http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com -- put it: "Should we make new people? Should we force people to remain alive?".)


"You yourself wrote that religion doesn't have anything to do with WASPness"

"Since religion is not relevant to WASPness, Romney is an uber-WASP. Based on your own definition of what WASPness is."

Romney was born and is a Mormon. Mormons are closely related to WASPs and descend from them, but they're a different identity.

"WASPness" i.e. WASP identity is comprised of Anglo-Saxon, Protestant ethnicity and culture. Religion is relevant, but not as a simplistic matter of belief. Someone who was born a WASP doesn't cease to be one because he becomes an atheist. A WASP who converts to Tibetan Buddhism doesn't magically turn into a Tibetan Buddhist and cease being a WASP. An Italian Catholic doesn't turn into a WASP because he converts to Presbyterianism.

David Brooks wrote about WASP decline recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html

"Through most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Protestant Establishment sat atop the American power structure. A relatively small network of white Protestant men dominated the universities, the world of finance, the local country clubs and even high government service.

Over the past half–century, a more diverse and meritocratic elite has replaced the Protestant Establishment. People are more likely to rise on the basis of grades, test scores, effort and performance."

This article from the WSJ is also good:

"That Bright, Dying Star, the American WASP"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704414504575244622954114574.html

"In the long downward spiral of what used to be known as America's Protestant Establishment, there have been several momentous milestones: Harvard's opening up its admissions policies after World War II. Corporate America's rush in the 1980s to bring more diversity to the corner office. Barack Obama's inauguration as the first African-American president.

History may reveal another milestone—Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. If she is confirmed, the nation's nine most powerful judges will all be Catholic or Jewish, leaving the court without a Protestant member for the first time."

"Whether the court's religious makeup even matters in today's legal world has become a subject of hot debate. Yet by ushering in a Protestant-free court, Ms. Kagan is helping to sweep away some of the last vestiges of a group that ruled American politics, wealth and culture for much of the nation's history.

"The fact that we're going to zero Protestants in the court may not be as significant as the fact that her appointment perfectly reflects the decline of the Establishment, or the WASP Establishment, in America," said David Campbell, associate professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame.

Seen from the distance of time, the changes are stunning. In the 1960s, the vast majority of corporate managers were Protestant, according to E. Digby Baltzell's famous 1964 tome, "The Protestant Establishment."

The percentage of Protestants in Congress has dropped to 55% from 74% in 1961, according to Pew Forum. The corner offices of the top banks, once ruled by Rockefellers and Bakers, now include an Indian-American and the grandson of a Greek immigrant.

In old-money enclaves like Palm Beach, Fla., Nantucket, Mass., and Greenwich, Conn., WASPs are being priced out of their waterfront estates and displaced on their nonprofit boards by Jewish, Catholic and other non-Protestant entrepreneurs."

These are articles from the past few weeks:

"As the White Protestant Vote Recedes, the GOP Turns to ‘Voter Fraud’"

"As the political strength of WASPs ebbs, it’s no coincidence that both tickets have Catholic running mates, writes Allan J. Lichtman."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/16/as-the-white-protestant-vote-recedes-the-gop-turns-to-voter-fraud.html

"CHART: No More WASPs In Presidential Races"

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/04/chart-no-more-wasps-in-presidential-races

I agree with you Josh. America has declined at the same time WASPs have lost their dominance at elite levels of society. Non-WASPs have mostly failed as elites. They may be productive, smart, or whatever but their stewardship has been disastrous.

[HS: European countries still run by white Protestants are as leftist if not more so than the United States.]

@ Half Sigma

Sure but are they necessarily worse off? Scandinavian proles aren't dysfunctional like our own. With Germany's two tier education system it's questionable how leftist some of these countries really are. Maybe it's just luck, geography, or some other intangible that makes them special then because they don't seem to be in decline the way America is. The UK however is but like America they too have a lot of non-WASP elites.

"Romney was born and is a Mormon. Mormons are closely related to WASPs and descend from them, but they're a different identity."

Romney's Mormonism does not change his pure WASPness because "WASP is an ethnic category":

"Being an atheist or a Buddhist doesn't make someone not a WASP. WASP is an ethnic category.

Posted by: Josh P. | September 07, 2012 at 02:53 PM"

Give it up Romney is a WASP

"The percentage of Protestants in Congress has dropped to 55% from 74% in 1961,"

All of those statistics you cite are deceptive because they undercount WASPs through not counting people of mixed white background and leaving out ethnic WASPs who have been leaving high Church Protestantism for years.

Undercounting WASPs also inflates the number of Jews and Catholics in elite circles because part-Jews and part-Catholics are being compared to the population that has either entirely or overwhelmingly Jewish or Catholic ancestry.

"An Italian Catholic doesn't turn into a WASP because he converts to Presbyterianism."

Then that means Romney doesn't become a non-WASP because his religion is Mormonism.

"CHART: No More WASPs In Presidential Races"

Romney is a WASP.

"In old-money enclaves like Palm Beach, Fla., Nantucket, Mass., and Greenwich, Conn., WASPs are being priced out of their waterfront estates and displaced on their nonprofit boards by Jewish, Catholic and other non-Protestant entrepreneurs."

Again, this is deceptive because the "Jewish" and Catholic elites WASPs are being considered against are often part WASP themselves or only part Jewish or ethnic white.

This has the effect of overcounting how many non-WASP elites there are and undercounting how many people with significant WASP background there are.

For instance, Larry Page and Steve Ballmer are both half Jewish (half generic Anglo American and half Swiss, respectively) but they are normally counted as full Jews in lists of top CEOs, and thus result in fudged statistics that underestimate gentile influence and overstate Jewish influence.

This lazy fact checking by dumb journalists (and deliberate lying by anti-semites) also skews statistics about Jewish representation at elite cognitive fields. Geniuses like Niels Bohr (half Dutch), Alexander Grothendieck (half German Protestant) and Gary Kasparov (half Armenian) are often wrongly counted as full Jews.

But even if for the sake of argument you don't count part-WASPs as WASPs, then Jews are also on the decline because a majority of Jews at elite colleges are only half Jews.

The comments to this entry are closed.